New Church Policy?

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Duncan said:

nope, you are blurring the lines and normal people are calling you out on it. It's ridiculous how you and others manipulate the LoC into something it was never meant to be and I am SO glad I wasn't ever taught by you. As I said before if you get too close to the fire you burn but if you move too far away you freeze to death and I wonder how you like breakfast with the polar bears?

Praise God above I am NOT going to church tomorrow because of you and Smac1797 because I might accidentally see a woman. I am so,so done with ilk like you people

I think it is important that we obey both the letter and the spirit of the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel.  I don't think it is appropriate or proper to look at behavioral guidelines and constraints in an adversarial way, with an eye toward parsing them out using technicalities, hairsplitting, and so on to incrementally engage in behaviors that stray from chaste and beautiful to gray and questionable, and in the end into full-on rebellion against the commandments.  It seems like some folks on this board are advocating / justifying / rationalizing such behaviors.

Consider these 2008 remarks by then-Pres. Uchtdorf:

Quote

But be cautious. These same technologies can allow evil influences to cross the threshold of your homes. These dangerous traps are only a mouse click away. Pornography, violence, intolerance, and ungodliness destroy families, marriages, and individual lives. These dangers are distributed through many media, including magazines, books, television, movies, and music, as well as the Internet. The Lord will help you to recognize and avoid those evils. It is the early recognition of danger and a clear course correction that will keep you in the light of the gospel. Minor decisions can lead to major consequences.

Entering a strange and risky chat room on the Internet could lead you into the center of a raging storm. Putting a computer in a private room that the rest of the family cannot access could be the starting point for a deceitful and dangerous journey.

But the Lord requires not only outward acts but also your inner thoughts and feelings to be close to the spirit of the law. God “require[s] the heart and a willing mind.”

And these 1990 remarks by Elder Packer:

Quote

Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not.

The commandments found in the scriptures, both the positive counsel and the “shalt nots,” form the letter of the law. There is also the spirit of the law. We are responsible for both.

Some challenge us to show where the scriptures specifically forbid abortion or a gay-lesbian or drug-centered life-style. “If they are so wrong,” they ask, “why don’t the scriptures tell us so in ‘letter of the law’ plainness?” These issues are not ignored in the revelations.* The scriptures are generally positive rather than negative in their themes, and it is a mistake to assume that anything not specifically prohibited in the “letter of the law” is somehow approved of the Lord. All the Lord approves is not detailed in the scriptures, neither is all that is forbidden. The Word of Wisdom, for instance, makes no specific warning against taking arsenic. Surely we don’t need a revelation to tell us that!

The Lord said, “It is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant.” (D&C 58:26.) The prophets told us in the Book of Mormon that “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.” (2 Ne. 2:5; see Hel. 14:31.)

Life is meant to be a test to see if we will keep the commandments of God. (See 2 Ne. 2:5.) We are free to obey or to ignore the spirit and the letter of the law. But the agency granted to man is a moral agency. (See D&C 101:78.) We are not free to break our covenants and escape the consequences.

The laws of God are ordained to make us happy. Happiness cannot coexist with immorality: the prophet Alma told us in profound simplicity that “wickedness never was happiness.” (Alma 41:10.)

Elder Ballard had some thoughtful things to say back in 1996:

Quote

To you I have only one question: Are you going to follow the true and living prophets or not? It really isn’t any more complicated than that. The standard of the Church with regard to morality is clearly outlined in the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet, which you haven’t outgrown, even though many of you are no longer in Young Men and Young Women. If you choose to read anything that contains material that is contrary to the moral standards of the Church, then you are placing yourself and your own wisdom above the counsel of God’s prophets—a course of action that would indeed be very unwise. As soon as people begin to think that they know better than God or his oracles, or that counsel given doesn’t apply to themselves, they are stepping onto a slippery slope that has claimed far too many victims already. It takes faith—real faith, unequivocable and unreserved—to accept and attempt to live by prophetic counsel even when you don’t completely understand it. Such simple faith has the power to guide you safely through every challenge you may face in your life.

...

Of course, Lucifer doesn’t want us to feel or exhibit that kind of faith, and so he makes us feel uncomfortable with obedience. He plants defiance in our hearts with justification and rationalization, subtly convincing us that it is possible to live the spirit of the law even if we are in violation of its letter. Eventually he can make it seem wrong—or at least politically incorrect—to obey, branding it with derogatory labels like “blind faith.” But we must never forget this about Lucifer: He is a liar. He is the father of all lies and has been from the beginning. He was cast out of Heavenly Father’s premortal kingdom because of his disobedience, and now he has one goal, one eternal commitment that has never changed from the time of the War in Heaven until the present day. His sole purpose is to make you and me as miserable as he is, and the best way for him to accomplish that is to entice us into disobedience.

I also like this 2013 New Era article: Ten Ways to Know You Are Converted

Quote

In summary, you know you are becoming converted when you start to live the higher law, the gospel of Jesus Christ. You live the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. You live the gospel in all aspects of your life. You live the gospel to its fullest, not because you have to but because you want to. You are a happier and nicer person, and you want to become the person Heavenly Father wants you to be. You want to be like Jesus Christ and follow His example. When you become that person, you have truly been converted.

I do not want to have an adversarial relationship with any fellow member of the Church.  However, sometimes we see members of the Church beginning to use their membership to say and advocate for things that seem to contravene both the general and specific counsel we have received from past and present prophets and apostles, that seem to contravene the spirit of the law, and sometimes even the letter.  And so I will speak against such things.

I do not believe it is appropriate or right to advocate for, or attempt to justify and rationalize, behaviors that by design incrementally test and push against the parameters  of the Law of Chastity or any other commandment.  

The Savior said: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  (Matt. 5;28.)  I think those of us under covenant are obligated to live a higher law.  We are supposed to strive to obey the commandments, not parse them out and look for ways to circumvent them or rationalize gradual encroachments and incursions toward patently wrong behaviors.

I believe that the folks who are presenting such rationalizations and justifications are starting from a place of compassion for our gay brothers and sisters.  I respect and appreciate that.  But I think we materially harm these brothers and sisters by encouraging them to resent the commandments, to gradually test and push against the boundaries, to look for technicalities and loopholes and prevarications, to ignore the spirit (and, in time, the letter) of the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

This where some members go off into the deep end, they see all behaviour as sexual or have the potential for it-we see it posted pn here.  Others like me don't see it that way.

I reject the charge.  I do not see "all behavior as sexual."

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

Do I think that, with the quotations I previously posted, that senior leaders saying they love the President of the Church as homosexual activity? No, that's way, way beyond crazy.

I think you quoted these materials in a reductio ad absurdum kind of way.  I don't think it works very well, though.

Some on this thread are advocating for behaviors such as same-sex handholding, kissing, dancing, by members of the Church, presumably during or around Church-sponsored events (but also at any other time).

I find these behaviors categorically inappropriate.  Are they full-blown violations of the Law of Chastity on par with sexual intercourse?  No, I don't think so. 

But are they compatible with discipleship?  No, I don't think so.

I have a sincere question for you: If we were in a Q&A session with one or more members of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve, do you think they would encourage or discourage the behaviors you are advocating here?

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

Smac 1797 and others though see it as sexual.

I do not.

If a married man is romantically holding hands with a woman who is not his wife, I don't see that "as sexual."  But it sure is inappropriate and wrong.  And it's very likely to be an incremental step toward something that is "sexual."

What are your thoughts about this?  Can a married man justify romantically holding hands with a woman who is not his wife by saying "it's not sex, so it's okay"? 

While dating I held hands with a few of the women I dated.  I thought, and still think, that this was fine. 

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

As I say they have taken a good thing and made it so beyond living or "doable" how they ever find love in a world I have no idea-everything is breaking the LofC.

Abstaining from behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity is eminently doable.  

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

I cancelled the missionaries tonite for dinner because I might shake hands with the sisters and that would be an example as breaking the LoC.

I don't believe that.

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

Now, I am not even going to attend church, physically on sunday because I might see a woman.

I don't believe that either.

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

Instead I am staying home and muting everything because looking at a woman is breaking the LoC.

The reductio ad absurdum and appeal to ridicule stuff isn't working.

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

I have to go to the Dr. in two weeks, I will cancel because i'll be alone with her in a small room(with cameras) but that's inappropriate so to appease the twisted nonsense of some posters on here, having a checkup must be held in  obeyance because keeping the LoC is paramount in importance.  As long as I don't see a woman, hear one, contact one, physically touch one via a handshake then i'm good.

You are descending into bearing false witness with this stuff.

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

I don't know how I should get married without having any literal thing to do with a woman.

Quite a strawman you are building here.

On 4/22/2022 at 7:44 PM, Duncan said:

I don't know how these robot posters on here did it, maybe they wrote notes? never even saw who they are marrying until they go across the altar. 

That's pretty easy to explain.  

Latter-day Saints should keep the Law of Chastity.  We should should look to the scriptural and prophetic counsel we have received from past and present prophets and apostles.  We should strive to keep both the letter and the spirit of the law.

I think Latter-day Saints should not seek to prevaricate or evade the commandments by looking for technicalities, legalisms, loopholes, etc. to justify and rationalize, at first, incremental incursions as to the spirit and, over time, to gradually slide into setting aside both the spirit and the letter of the law.

I also think Latter-day Saints should step back from emotionalisms and anger and try to be reasoned and prudent.  There is obviously a clear and bright path for chaste and honorable dating and other romantic behaviors between a young man and a young woman.  This path can then lead to marriage, in which relationship the man and woman can enjoy the sexual aspect of life, though still within parameters set by the Lord.  

The Law of Chastity, in its most basic form, is proscriptive as to the sexual act with others.  However, "the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse."  Hence we have counsel as to abstaining from pornography, masturbation, inappropriate kissing and touching, and so on.  Some of these are obviously matters of degree (kissing but not "passionate" kissing, holding hands but not "touch{ing} the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, etc.).  

As regarding same-sex romantic/sexual feelings, the Church has long taught that having these feelings is not sinful, but acting on them is.  

We also have but also prescriptive commandments pertaining to sex (multiply and replenish, strengthen the bond between husband and wife).

I regret that my remarks have angered you, Duncan.  I did not start out with that intention.  I think we Latter-day Saints need to be helping each other.  The Law of Chastity is taking quite a beating these days, and I think a big part of that starts with incremental incursions against it.  I think some of the comments in this thread come across as attempting a sly and quiet subversion of the big and obvious parts of the Law of Chastity via endorsing legalistic and looking-beyond-the-mark technicalities.  

Now, if I am wrong about that I would like to be corrected.  Although it is a very difficult law, I believe the Law of Chastity as taught by the Church is important and ought to be followed.  Do you agree (including its proscriptions against "homosexual and lesbian behavior")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 24, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

17 hours ago, ttribe said:

Isn't it lovely how quickly many defenders revert to treating us as if we never knew anything about the Church's teachings?

Kinda hard to know or keep track of who "us" is. 

If and when a poster advocates for things that contravene the long-held and clear-cut teachings of the Church, it's not unreasonable to re-state "the Church's teachings."

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I realize this talk is somehow suppose to make someone feel ok with being gay, but for me, the statements of love feel completely hollow.  Quoting Elder Packer, the apostle who encouraged missionaries to punch out a gay person if they percieved that the gay companion was coming on to them.  

I can't let this misrepresentation of Elder Packer's remarks go unrebutted.  See here:

Quote

Elder Packer said:

I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself. ^[1]

...

Males in the Church serve full-time missions for two years. During this time, they are expected to dedicate themselves to full-time service of the Lord, His Kingdom, and people in and out of the Church. LDS missionaries are forbidden from dating or engaging in any romantic activities during this period of time. Furthermore, each missionary is assigned a "companion"--this is another missionary with whom the young man lives and works.

Missionaries are forbidden to go anywhere without their companion. Companions live in the same apartment, sleep in the same room, and go everywhere together. When out of the apartment, missionaries are taught that they are never to be alone or unaccompanied by their companion (save for trips to the bathroom and the like). Keeping missionaries together in this way serves at least two purposes:

1. Missionaries are protected from temptation, and it is hoped that they will also avoid behavior which might reflect poorly upon their mission and the Church
2. Perhaps more importantly, missionaries are protected against false accusations. No LDS missionary will ever be alone, and so there will always be another witness to his acts or behavior. Thus, if a missionary were (for example) falsely charged by a malicious witness with a crime, the missionary would have both his own and his companion's testimony regarding his innocence.

A missionary who intentionally leaves his companion may be in serious trouble, and could be sent home from his mission.

We are now able to examine the story told by Elder Packer.

• They story is not about people with same-sex attraction, but about people who are trying to have sex with you. Elder Packer talked about "physical mischief with another man", "men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts", and "If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that". Elder Packer has long made a distinction between sexual acts and sexual attraction. He has repeatedly said sexual attraction is not a sin and those with same-sex attraction "need feel no guilt".[1] Even the responses only make sense in the context of an act: "it is time to vigorously resist" and "You must protect yourself". How do you vigorously resist someone else having same-sex attraction? This story is about a missionary who wanted an unwilling companion in a compromised position to join him in homosexual activity, not about a companion who simply confessed that he was gay. To be fair, we do not know the degree in which the companion was trying to get him to participate in immoral acts, but at the least it was sexual harassment and at the most it was attempted rape. Either extreme warrants self-defense.
• The missionary was in a compromised position. As detailed above, he was supposed to stay in close quarters with his companion. He could not simply say "No thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" and walk away. He lived with the person sexually harassing him. There is no indication from the story how long the sexual harassment was going on for.
• The story is not about LDS people going out and beating up on gay people. Elder Packer is also clear that he does not "recommend" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion--it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." Thus, it is clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance. This was not a matter of the companion saying, "By the way, I'm gay, I hope you can love and accept me anyway." He was attempting to persuade his companion into a homosexual act [remember, Elder Packer began the story by saying "physical mischief with another man" is forbidden, "some men...entice young men to join them in these immoral acts," and one must "vigorously resist" such attempts], and so his victim protected himself.

Sexual harassment

• Elder Packer has given similar advice to heterosexual members of the Church both before and after this talk, and Church magazines have also published multiple articles discussing self-defense courses and the legitimacy of self-defense in cases where there is a sexual threat.
• Sexual harassment of any sort is completely unacceptable. The United Nations defines sexual harrassment against women as:

such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem.... ^[3]

The European Union notes that harassment is:

unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at work. This includes unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct.... ^[4]

There is absolutely no context in LDS mission life where any sort of romantic attachment or engagement would be appropriate--with a companion or someone else, of the same gender or someone else. Thus, any sexual advance is unwelcome and utterly inappropriate. By definition, such behavior must be sexual harassment at a minimum, and might be sexual assault depending upon the details.

This is made worse when the offender is a companion, someone who has promised to protect and look out for the spiritual and physical well-being of the companion.

• Missionaries are expected to be together at all times. The work and live together. They can never be apart. Any invitation to homosexual sex would be an extremely intimidating situation. (This ignores the fact that there could have been an element of attempted force or coercion in the story--we are not told, though this is suggested when Elder Packer says that he does not omit the option of physical violence if necessary to protect oneself.
• The story did not recommend violence, even if you are solicited for sex. Elder Packer clearly pointed out that he "was not recommending" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion--it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." You wouldn't use the term "protect" to promote gay-bashing, but to make it clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance.
• Furthermore, both missionaries would have known that they had both promised not to engage in any romantic activity with anyone, much less a homosexual liaision. The companion who propositioned the missionary must have known this.
• Elder Packer was speaking in the 1970s; during this time period few young Mormons (like most young Americans) would have had much exposure to even the idea of homosexuality. The missionary in question could well have been entirely naive about such things, and not even known that such behavior existed. To be suddenly confronted by encouragement to act in such a way, by someone who was supposed to be a second witness of his own faithfulness to Church doctrine and mission rules, would have been incredibly shocking, and even terrifying. If the Elder forces him into acts, who will believe him? To whom can he go for help? (We see, in the story, how difficult it was for him even to describe the experience to Elder Packer, who had to spend considerable time before he would tell the story.)

In short, it is false and extremely unfair to characterize Elder Packer's story as advocacy of "gay beating" or violence against homosexuals simply because of their desires or inclinations, or their decision to have consensual sex with others. Instead, it is a sad but realistic admission that at times even violence may be necessary, as a last resort, to protect chastity.

...

Sexual harassment is unacceptable

The bias against men in the critics' version of this story is disappointing. The matter is perhaps easier to understand if we change the roles a bit. How would we react if an LDS young woman was on a mission, and told that she must spend every minute of the day with an LDS man? They must travel together, sleep in the same room, live together in what are generally cramped quarters. Now, let us imagine that the man propositions the young woman, and urges her to violate the law of chastity--would we think her out of line if she struck him?

Sexual harassment is unacceptable, regardless of whether men or women are the target. It does not matter if the harasser is homosexual or heterosexual--such behavior is everywhere and always wrong.

Anyone who has experienced sexual harassment can attest that it is an extremely frightening and oppressive experience. It is understandable that faced with such a situation--especially one which the missionary probably have never dreamed he would encounter from another male, much less his missionary companion--that the reaction would be terror and a panicked decision to do whatever it took to make sure he was safe.

No critic would dare say anything if an LDS sister missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor a homosexual, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim. This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church.

MEN CAN BE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[2] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[3]

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that even men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse and it is okay to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances, even if you are male, is important in reversing the society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

"No critic would dare say anything if an LDS sister missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor a homosexual, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim."

Yep.  There is no excuse for sexual harassment.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/21/2022 at 12:27 AM, Calm said:

If you do it in a way that shows them a false picture of the gospel or of God

So it’s more a question of manner than of substance, then. 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Nofear said:

That is true. There is not a single soul who has ever lived who was more authentic than our Savior in His love for every single person, and still, there were those who did not "feel loved" by Him because they did not trust Him or His message and would not accept His love.

And a lot of that distrust comes not from the Savior, but rather endless misery has been inflicted upon some by those claiming to be his followers.  I think it is important to always consider one's actions and how it represents the Savior.  It is not always an easy thing to do, but the result of improper actions can lead people away from Christ for a lifetime. I know a lot of people who want nothing to do with religion, largely based on how religion has treated them.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't let this misrepresentation of Elder Packer's remarks go unrebutted.  See here:

"No critic would dare say anything if an LDS sister missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor a homosexual, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim."

Yep.  There is no excuse for sexual harassment.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ve had pretty much the same response whenever this talk by Elder Packer has come up in discussion: I will ALWAYS support any son or daughter of mine in his/her efforts to resist sexual abuse UP TO AND INCLUDING bodily force and physical defense. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Peacefully]

If anyone thinks that I have come to my “progressive” opinions without praying and wrestling, you would be wrong. I found that I was having to twist myself into a pretzel to justify the church’s stance on homosexual behavior, especially in the context of a monogamous marriage. I didn’t come to this point easily, but when I got here, I felt peace. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I reject the charge.  I do not see "all behavior as sexual."

I think you quoted these materials in a reductio ad absurdum kind of way.  I don't think it works very well, though.

Some.

I find these behaviors categorically inappropriate.  Are they full-blown violations of the Law of Chastity on par with sexual intercourse?  No, I don't think so. 

But are they compatible with discipleship?  No, I don't think so.

I have a sincere question for you: If we were in a Q&A session with one or more members of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve, do you think they would encourage or discourage the behaviors you are advocating here?

I do not.

If a married man is romantically holding hands with a woman who is not his wife, I don't see that "as sexual."  But it sure is inappropriate and wrong.  And it's very likely to be an incremental step toward something that is "sexual."

What are your thoughts about this?  Can a married man justify romantically holding hands with a woman who is not his wife by saying "it's not sex, so it's okay"? 

While dating I held hands with a few of the women I dated.  I thought, and still think, that this was fine. 

Abstaining from behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity is eminently doable.  

I don't believe that.

I don't believe that either.

The reductio ad absurdum and appeal to ridicule stuff isn't working.

You are descending into bearing false witness with this stuff.

Quite a strawman you are building here.

That's pretty easy to explain.  

Latter-day Saints should keep the Law of Chastity.  We should should look to the scriptural and prophetic counsel we have received from past and present prophets and apostles.  We should strive to keep both the letter and the spirit of the law.

I think Latter-day Saints should not seek to prevaricate or evade the commandments by looking for technicalities, legalisms, loopholes, etc. to justify and rationalize, at first, incremental incursions as to the spirit and, over time, to gradually slide into setting aside both the spirit and the letter of the law.

I also think Latter-day Saints should step back from emotionalisms and anger and try to be reasoned and prudent.  There is obviously a clear and bright path for chaste and honorable dating and other romantic behaviors between a young man and a young woman.  This path can then lead to marriage, in which relationship the man and woman can enjoy the sexual aspect of life, though still within parameters set by the Lord.  

The Law of Chastity, in its most basic form, is proscriptive as to the sexual act with others.  However, "the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse."  Hence we have counsel as to abstaining from pornography, masturbation, inappropriate kissing and tou

 

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't let this misrepresentation of Elder Packer's remarks go unrebutted.  See here:

-Smac

How is this ever an ok advice from someone claiming to be an apostle of Christ 

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way"

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way"

This is exactly my point.  In one breath an apostle is saying someone had to deck a gay companion who did something unnamed while in the next breath saying we should show love.  
 

passive aggressive behavior does not inspire a gay person to trust someone’s love.  I can’t understand how you cannot see that

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Kinda hard to know or keep track of who "us" is. 

If and when a poster advocates for things that contravene the long-held and clear-cut teachings of the Church, it's not unreasonable to re-state "the Church's teachings."

Thanks,

-Smac 

Critic: Points out an ineffective method.

Defender: Doubles down on commitment to ineffective method.

[teddyaware]

42 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

If anyone thinks that I have come to my “progressive” opinions without praying and wrestling, you would be wrong. I found that I was having to twist myself into a pretzel to justify the church’s stance on homosexual behavior, especially in the context of a monogamous marriage. I didn’t come to this point easily, but when I got here, I felt peace. 

There were many zealous and powerfully convinced heretics who also twisted themselves into pretzels because they found themselves at odds with the living prophets of God and the teachings of the prophets in scripture,  only to discover in the end that their strong emotions deep personal convictions, as persuasive as they seemed, only led them down false and forbidden dead end paths. 

[smac97]

On 4/23/2022 at 11:09 AM, Duncan said:

The Pof doesn't mention a word about homosexuals or trans people. 

It most certainly does.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

How is this ever an ok advice from someone claiming to be an apostle of Christ 

 

 

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way"

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way"

This is exactly my point.  In one breath an apostle is saying someone had to deck a gay companion who did something unnamed while in the next breath saying we should show love.  
 

passive aggressive behavior does not inspire a gay person to trust someone’s love.  I can’t understand how you cannot see that

You are right that it would be out of keeping with the high and holy calling of an apostle to countenance “passive-aggressive behavior” or unjustified violence. Furthermore, to do so would be altogether uncharacteristic of Elder Packer from what I know of him through many years of studying his teachings. 
 

Which is why your assumptions about him strike me as absurd. Far more reasonable to conclude that what he was alluding to in this account was a case of aggressive sexual harassment if not forcible sexual abuse. I repeat, if a son or daughter or anyone else I love and care about were being subjected to such a thing, I would be fine with the person reacting in such a manner as has been described here. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

If anyone thinks that I have come to my “progressive” opinions without praying and wrestling, you would be wrong. I found that I was having to twist myself into a pretzel to justify the church’s stance on homosexual behavior, especially in the context of a monogamous marriage. I didn’t come to this point easily, but when I got here, I felt peace. 

I, on the other hand, would have to go through contortions equally tortuous, if not more so, to reconcile many so-called “progressive” attitudes with the consistent and united teachings of the prophets and apostles over the years as more recently affirmed and emphasized in the family proclamation. 
 

And I’m at perfect peace with the loving but firm approach of the Church leaders toward those who struggle to obey the commandments of God.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The standard of the Church with regard to morality is clearly outlined in the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet, which you haven’t outgrown, even though many of you are no longer in Young Men and Young Women.

Smac was here quoting Elder Ballard. 
 

I’ve seen within the last day or so on this board (perhaps it was on this thread) “For the Strength of Youth” marginalized as “a pamphlet for teenagers.” My children are now either grown or mostly grown. At my stage in life, I can’t think of a single thing in this “pamphlet for teenagers” that would not be worth taking as my personal guide. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

There were many zealous and powerfully convinced heretics who also twisted themselves into pretzels because they found themselves at odds with the living prophets of God and the teachings of the prophets in scripture,  only to discover in the end that their strong emotions deep personal convictions, as persuasive as they seemed, only led them down false and forbidden dead end paths. 

And there have also been churches and prophets who've been wrong...

[The Nehor]

Welp, this thread appears to be another stalemate.

Same time next week to do it all over again?

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Welp, this thread appears to be another stalemate.

Same time next week to do it all over again?

For those who love a good debate, there’s nothing more enticing than another fun round of “Homosexuality:  You’re Wrong.”

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

For those who love a good debate, there’s nothing more enticing than another fun round of “Homosexuality:  You’re Wrong.”

I am not sure I would call it “good”.

Generally it comes down to:

”God said no!”

“But maybe God didn’t!”

Sprinkle a few people saying God doesn’t exist and you have the whole debate.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

How is this ever an ok advice from someone claiming to be an apostle of Christ 

 

 

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."

"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way"

"But I floored him," he said.

After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way"

This is exactly my point.  In one breath an apostle is saying someone had to deck a gay companion who did something unnamed while in the next breath saying we should show love.  
 

passive aggressive behavior does not inspire a gay person to trust someone’s love.  I can’t understand how you cannot see that

What is the level of sexual insult/injury you think appropriate for an apostle to floor someone? We cannot show love unless we love and protect ourselves, and sometimes showing love involves preventing someone from committing egregious acts. Why wait until a General Authority to has to solve the problem that way?

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, longview said:

There are very sound and loving precepts in the Proclamation on the Family and the answers Elder Bednar gave are very encouraging.   What are we missing?  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NEVER a "waste of time."

i'll tell my trans son that because the POF was used as a weapon to drive him out of the church. God loves him but his leaders don't want him in the church. The revelation I got was don't bother with the church for him, God will take care of him in the next life. That is what I am going with. God has a different path for him that doesn't involve him being involved in the church. In the next life, maybe we'll see. FYI one of his YM later cheated on his wife and got exed so good example of a POF family that was

Edited April 24, 2022 by Duncan

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It most certainly does.

where? 

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

And a lot of that distrust comes not from the Savior, but rather endless misery has been inflicted upon some by those claiming to be his followers.  I think it is important to always consider one's actions and how it represents the Savior.  It is not always an easy thing to do, but the result of improper actions can lead people away from Christ for a lifetime. I know a lot of people who want nothing to do with religion, largely based on how religion has treated them.

Sad, but true. That summary encapsulates much of Terryl Givens's post (linked again for reference: https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-urgent-need-to-console-the-wounded/). The mistakes of others, however zealous or not, does not excuse ourselves from obeying Christ. The failings of men are the failings of men and do not change the truthfulness of the Gospel.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

i'll tell my trans son that because the POF was used as a weapon to drive him out of the church. God loves him but his leaders don't want him in the church. The revelation I got was don't bother with the church for him, God will take care of him in the next life. That is what I am going with. God has a different path for him that doesn't involve him being involved in the church. In the next life, maybe we'll see. FYI one of his YM later cheated on his wife and got exed so good example of a POF family that was

I'm sorry you are having to deal with all of this.  It is really tough.  

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I, on the other hand, would have to go through contortions equally tortuous, if not more so, to reconcile many so-called “progressive” attitudes with the consistent and united teachings of the prophets and apostles over the years as more recently affirmed and emphasized in the family proclamation. 
 

And I’m at perfect peace with the loving but firm approach of the Church leaders toward those who struggle to obey the commandments of God.  

I’m not at all surprised by this. Reasonable minds can disagree.